1. Think, pair, share
A: Explain Hick’s analogy of the celestial city B: Explain Swinburne’s analogy of the toy’s in the cupboard. A: Explain Hare’s analogy of the paranoid lunatic. B:Explain Mitchell’s analogy of the freedom fighter.

2. Different views on the meaningfulness of religious language.

3. Learning Outcomes
To be able to plan an essay on religious language.

4. Verification and falsification
Read through the article and complete the mind map!
Falsification and verification
Stretch yourself: Include your opinion on each theory to the mind map.

5. Evaluation zig-zag
Complete the zig-zag in your groups. Zig-zag from arguments that support and criticise if religious language is meaningful.
For
Against
Stretch yourself:
To reach a better A02 grade you must always link your arguments. E.g. However Ayer would disagree with Hick because…..
For
Against

6. ‘Is religious language meaningful?’ Discuss.
Consider how you would plan this essay… Create a plan using the worksheet to help you! Make sure you set it out according what you would write in each paragraph.
Stretch yourself: Have you remember to consider where you include the ‘little thinkers?’

7. Suggested Essay Structure - Paragraphs
Introduction – basic problem, background, cognitive and non-cognitive language.
Verification – Logical positivists, Ayer and the VP, and the weak VP.
Evaluation of Verification – your views, criticisms of Verification: Hick, Swinburne, self-contradictory?
Falsification – Flew, Hare and the bliks.
Evaluation of Falsification – Hick, Mitchell and the freedom fighter.
Conclusion – consider and answer: is religious language meaningless? Is it non-cognitive? Does language even have to be verifiable to be meaningful? How might this impact on religion?
Clear answers and strong argument throughout!

8. What do you think?
Read through their essay plan and use the feedback sheet to help you evaluate it. Give them two stars and a wish. Two things good about it and a target to help them improve.